The Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’ of women.

Saturday, 29 December 2012

Misandrist feminism is a creation of the Baby Boomer generation. Most
demographers argue that the Baby Boomers will start dying off en masse in
2015. By 2025, there should be very few of them left and Generation X will hold
most of their power and influence. With their passing, will the feminism
they promoted start dying too?

In our view, the Boomers’ decline has already exposed many unpleasant
truths about ‘the Love Generation’.The
bucolic reputation of the British 1960s is rapidly crumbling. The Jimmy Savile revelations of 2012, for
instance, exposed the vaunted 'Sixties' as an era of conspiracy, pedophilia and
sexual coercion. For decades, Boomer domination of the media had maintained
the illusion that the 'Sixties' was a classless utopia defined by the Beatles and
Mary Quant. As their grip slipped, however, a harsher truth emerged.

Consider this: after
2015, every Boomer assumption will
come under similar attack. And this revolution will swiftly transform the whole
Anglosphere.

Middle class Boomers of the 'Sixties' pedestalized women as no generation
before or since. But many White Knights will fall from 2015 to 2025, leaving us
a free road to advance our agendas: to state the case bluntly, Time’s scythe will leave us masters of the
field. Of course, pussy-begging maggots like Futrelle will maintain a spirited rearguard
resistance – but without Boomer patronage, expect them to seem ever less mainstream, ever more eccentric,
ever more the pussy-begging losers they are.

In sum, the next few years represent unprecedented opportunities to
reject, ignore or challenge Anglo-American feminism. Expect also the
accelerated decline of organized religion; the marginalization of academic
anti-essentialism; and, above all, the collapse of socon politics. Future
conservatism must jettison its traditional links to religion, sexual repression
and ‘the family’ in order to survive. Mitt Romney’s catastrophic defeat
demonstrates that fidelity to such outdated Boomer ‘norms’ only results in
electoral failure. Indeed, the leadership of the British Conservative Party is
already expressing concerns about its ‘toxic’ ties to ‘tradition’ in a country
where 35% of people are single.

So let us take heart as the curtain falls on the Boomers' fading
empire.

Friday, 21 December 2012

Schoolboys in Imperial
Germany were encouraged to write appreciative essays on the subject of dying
for the fatherland. It won’t be too long, I fear, before Anglo-American
schoolboys are writing essays about dying for the Matriarchy. Certainly, the
Anglosphere seems to be moving in that direction.

With popular support for
the unwinnable wars in the Near East waning, the legacy media is redefining
those wars in terms of a matriarchal crusade against 'patriarchal barbarism’.

Unwitting tool of these
sickly agenda is a hapless Afghan girl shot by the Taliban.Never mind that the Taliban
offer at least as much violence against subaltern males in Afghanistan – all
males are the enemy in this hasty redefinition, and thus unworthy of
consideration or sympathy:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — When the time came to choose medical treatment for Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl who defied the Taliban
and then was gunned down by them, her family and doctors faced a world
of possibilities after a global outpouring of advice and offers of
assistance.

Whatever they chose, a medical jet from the United Arab Emirates was
waiting to take her to hospitals abroad. Pakistani and American
officials had talked about arranging treatment for her at the giant
American military hospital at Landstuhl, Germany.

A well-developed offer came from former Representative Gabrielle
Giffords and her husband, Mark E. Kelly, who had gone through their own
treatment ordeal after she was shot in the head last year. They had gone
as far as to line up a noted neurosurgeon and had even arranged a
transportation option of their own to the United States — with a
television celebrity offering to quietly foot the fuel bill.

Those were among dozens of offers from across the world. But when the
time came to fly the wounded schoolgirl out of Pakistan, in the early
hours of Monday, a deal from Britain to accept Malala at a specialized hospital in Birmingham proved hard to beat.

But first, to get her there.

Out of worry that the Taliban would fulfill their promise to take a
second shot at the teenage activist, the dawn run from the military
hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, to the airport was shrouded in
secrecy, said Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister.

“I directed the airport staff to remain incognito, because there was an
alert, threats from the Taliban that they would kill her,” he said. “We
were very careful.”

Yet there was little doubt that each of the possibilities, especially
given the diplomatic tensions between Pakistan and America, carried its
own political risk.

Initially, Pakistani officials had approached the American Embassy for help, officials from both countries said. Two options were discussed, Interior Minister Malik said: the possible
use of an American military facility in Oman, and evacuation to the
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. “We scrambled like hell,”
one American official said. “We were standing by, ready to do anything.

There were also private American offers — from Ms. Giffords and Mr.
Kelly, plus at least three other “serious” parties, the American
official added. One came from an American businessman with ties to
senior figures in the Pakistan government; another came from a
constituent of Senator John Kerry, who has longstanding political ties
to the country.

Meanwhile Ms. Giffords’s doctor, Dr. Dong Kim, the head of neurosurgery at the Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center,
got ready to travel to Pakistan. Mr. Kelly, a former astronaut, said he
had recruited an American celebrity, whom he declined to name, to
finance the fuel costs of an emergency plane trip from Peshawar to
Houston.

“We were just trying to offer the best help available, as we understand it from being down this road,” Mr. Kelly said.

Mr. Kelly also pressed political contacts in the White House, State
Department and Pakistan to help push the offer through. He said that
Johns Hopkins University made a similar offer. But over the weekend, Mr. Kelly was told by a senior State Department
official that “Pakistan has decided to solve this domestically.”

The British connection, however, had already been well established at
that point through two doctors, both experts in trauma injuries and one
of whom was of Pakistani descent, who happened to be visiting Pakistan
at the time of the shooting last week

The medics were quickly drafted into the effort to save Ms. Yousafzai’s
life. They were flown to Peshawar to help with the initial diagnosis and
then on to the hospital in Rawalpindi. They shared in decisions about
how long to keep the patient in Pakistan, officials from Britain and
Pakistan said, declining to name the two.

Early Monday morning, the medics accompanied a Pakistani brigadier in
watching over Ms. Yousafzai during the flight to Britain. The air
ambulance that ferried them had been offered by the United Arab
Emirates, a country with close political ties to President Asif Ali
Zardari.

By several accounts there were sound medical reasons why the American
offers of help to Ms. Yousafzai were not accepted, including the
lengthier flight to the United States.

But Britain may also have held other attractions. While the United
States and Pakistan have engaged in diplomatic warfare in recent years —
over the Osama bin Laden raid, drone strikes and the controversy
surrounding a Central Intelligence Agency contractor, Raymond Davis —
Britain has carefully cultivated a less adversarial relationship. Britain has been a major aid donor to Pakistan for decades, and many
high-ranking Pakistanis, in political life and in the country’s armed
forces, have been educated or trained in Britain.

“If we had an offer of British help and American help, all things being
equal we would go with the British,” one senior Pakistani official said.
“It makes more sense.”

Exact details of Ms. Yousafzai’s condition remain hazy. Doctors say she
requires treatment for a serious skull fracture, caused by a bullet that
passed through her head. Later, she may require long-term neurological
rehabilitation.

Ms. Yousafzai’s schoolmaster father, Ziauddin, who inspired her to start
her high-profile campaign for girls’ education and women’s rights in
2009, did not travel with her to Birmingham yesterday, Pakistani
officials said.

SOURCE: New York Times

As if by magic, the War
against Terror is becoming a war to impose Anglo feminism on unwilling lands
and peoples. Of course, both Anglo
socons and feminists clamor for this – after all, both groups are bound by the
same puritanical misandry that defines the Anglo nations.

The problem with their
crooked agenda is this: very few Anglo-American men want to die for the matriarchy. Apart from White Knights and lumpen-working
class idiots, most men now view feminism as a threat to their lives and
liberty.Having seen so many fathers,
uncles and brothers crash and burn in ‘no fault’ divorces, not to mention
having experienced discrimination in every sphere of adult life,very few Anglo-American American males will
be signing up to defend women’s ‘rights’ any time soon.

I have an alternative
solution. If feminists want to expand the matriarchy, perhaps they should do it
themselves?

The Anglo-American men’s
movement has generally internalized the Darwinian worldview, at least as it
pertains to gender relations. Unfortunately, this world-view can be used to
legitimate male expendability. Moreover, the Darwinian model explains
institutionalized misandry quite well – especially military gendercide, biased
divorce laws and negative media representations of men. Indeed, many feminists
and White Knights cherry pick aspects of evolutionary psychology as conceptual
justification for male disposability, female hypergamy and other misandrist
agendas.

The contemporary men’s
movement remains marginalized because it seeks to mimic feminism. MRAs
complain about the Sympathy Gap they experience, assuming they will reflexively
attract the same sympathy and support as misandrist gender-feminism. They won’t
of course – least of all from the male elite, who view them with bemused
contempt. How, then, should the men’s movement proceed? If men are biologically
programmed to compete for status and sex and view other men as expendable, how
can a cogent and effective men’s movement ever develop?

The answer is that it
won’t – at least, not in the way feminism has developed, with political
patronage and government grants. It must choose a different road, one that
acknowledges public indifference to men’s issues. In short, the Sympathy Gap
needs expanding, not contracting – and reciprocating in kind. Since men
are treated as expendable mercenaries, they should embrace that role –
sever all social bonds and obligations, shun permanent relationships and
generally view the world with cynical detachment.

The strongest man is he
who stands alone; and no man demonstrates this truth more than the mercenary
male, striding from land to land without bonds, commitments or ideals. Stunned
and shaking, the elite and its feminist allies already tremble at this rising
tide of masculine disengagement.

Saturday, 27 October 2012

The two posts I made at the start of last year arguing that rape
confounds Game have become iconic. In fact, they attract more hits that the
rest of my posts put together. In simple terms, these two articles claimed that
intra-male sexual competition has obviated the need for women to evolve a
complex sex drive. Unequal male reproductive success has not occurred because
women made mating choices; it occurred because women had no mating choices.
Powerful men mated with many women because they killed off or enslaved male
rivals; female ‘choice’ simply had no place in reproductive outcomes. And so
the whole ‘Game’ argument – that female choice has sculpted human evolution –
is discredited. In sum, what little female sex drive that evolved is both weak
and dysfunctional. Unlike the male sex drive with its voracious hunger for
youth, health and beauty, the female sex drive lacks any functional focus. And
this explains why women prefer bums, retards and losers to successful,
intelligent men: their 'unevolved' sex-drive lacks ‘evolutionary logic’.

One valid objection to this theory is that mass rapes of women by
military conquerors are actually quite rare in history. They have happened,
though; and the recent Balkans conflict shows they still happen. However, in this article I hope to introduce a new concept to the
debate: soft rape. If we were to label direct sexual coercion ‘hard rape’, soft
rape is its indirect counterpart; the use of socio-economic power to engineer
situations where coercive sexual activity can occur without legal redress.

Soft Rape confounds the underlying assumptions of Game just as readily as its hard counterpart. And
it explains why female reproductive urges remain weak and illogical in exactly
the same way: intra-male sexual competition obviated the need for a complex,
discriminatory female sexuality to have ever evolved. And so it never did: which
is why females seldom use pornography, or why male prostitutes cater exclusively
for a male clientele, or why many women confuse incontinence with orgasm.

The recent stellar exponent of soft rape has to be Sir Jimmy Savile. A
brief look at Savile’s life suggests how males can use soft rape techniques to
secure sexual access to many young women, even those of illegal age – and get
away with it.

Savile was born in Leeds – an industrial city in the north of England –
in 1928. Soon tiring of a coal-miner’s short, hard life, he began to manage
night clubs in the late 1950s. American youth culture was spreading to Britain,
post-War austerity was in decline and the way lay open for intelligent, driven
men like Savile to make their mark. Savile became a famous ‘disc jockey’ in
Manchester; in fact, he is credited with inventing the use of two turntables.
Success followed success. By the 60s, he was a national celebrity, presenting
TV shows like the execrable Top of the Pops. By the 70s he had become a
national treasure - a working class hero who juggled charity work with his many
media commitments. Royalty, politicians and celebrities alike sought his sage
advice. Despite his lack of formal education, Savile had great native
intelligence: he was a member of Mensa. Until his death last year,
the man was lionized as a kind of living saint.

And then the revelations began.

'King Jimmy' had been using soft rape techniques to engineer sexual
encounters with young girls for over fifty years. His charity work created a
shield of sainthood around him, inhibiting media speculation about his
sexuality. His connections ensured that young women would submit to him in order
to advance their careers. And his wealth meant that he could even abuse his own
female relatives with impunity – they and their families were financially
dependent on him. His great-niece says:

'If we blabbed on Jimmy or told tales, the fame that surrounded him would've gone. And I loved to say that Jimmy Savile is my Uncle - I loved to say it, it made me proud. But for him to suddenly be destroyed over something like this, the family would have had nothing.'

In sum, Savile’s status meant he could get copious quantities
of sex without being 'attractive' to women. Charm or looks never entered the equation. Rather, his social and economic
power made women - even his own relatives - defenceless before him. Not only that, he could enjoy
their bodies without legal redress or media intrusion.

And so we see how soft rape must have operated throughout history. Together with the more forceful hard rape,
soft rape could well have obviated female sexual evolution altogether. Powerful
males used their position to gain mating access and their wealth ensured more of
their offspring survived. Religious authority creates many opportunities for soft
rape, too – a license for it, in many respects. The female predilection for
magic crystals and unctuous sentiment has always given religious leaders huge
scope for tangential coercion.

So the charge that hard rape has not occurred with sufficient frequency
to obviate the evolution of female sexuality falls apart. Soft rape has surely
been an omnipresent dynamic in human evolution, becoming ever more powerful
with the rise of complex societies. Indeed, the life of Jimmy Savile suggests
its ongoing influence today, in a post-feminist matriarchy. In a way, just being born with property or money is a
kind of soft rape in economically-polarized societies like the United States. Again, if a male is born
into a certain class or ethnic group he has certain reproductive advantages (or
disadvantages) in relation to other males. For example, upper class males are
far more likely to reproduce than their underclass counterparts. Together, soft
and hard rape explain why men nurture a sharp, logical desire for youth and
beauty; while women court thugs and misfits - and western societies spiral ever further towards chaos.

PS: Hello to the guys at Canal Bufalo. Long may Brazil remain the most
liberated country on earth!

Thursday, 11 October 2012

As some of you may know, I have been working on a definitive statement of my ideas about feminism for some years. At last, this has come to fruition in Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.

Many commentators view the 'male crisis' that besets the English-speaking world - men's educational failure, social apathy and political alienation - as a by-product of modern feminism. However, 'Havok' argues that the English-speaking countries harbor a deep hostility to men that is centuries old. The puritanical religious culture that emerged in England during the Seventeenth Century stigmatized men as sexual beings. This anti-male agenda persists today in education, law and the 'mainstream' media. Far from being a 'revolutionary' movement, Anglo-American feminism reprises the oldest themes of English-speaking civilization - sexual repression, a distrust of visual beauty and misandry, the hatred of men.

If you have ever wondered why Anglo-American feminists and their conservative 'opponents' sound exactly the same, or why the American media vilifies men as 'morons' and 'losers', this book is for you.

The book can be bought here. All proceeds will go to expanding the Anglo-American men's movement.

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

The Anglosphere concept is now widely discussed on the Spearhead and other MRA fora, but few MRAs and PUAs have studied the subject in depth. In short, the Anglosphere concept argues that the English-speaking countries are defined by similar values, laws and institutions, not just language. While that is for the most part true, differences within the Anglosphere often go unstated. It has become fashionable to extol the Anglosphere concept in online discourse because it allows the formation of quick friendships and alliances. Additionally, the Internet reduces experience to the written word, in itself a great and abstract leveller.

We should be wary of the Anglosphere concept, however. While useful, there are important differences between the Anglosphere countries. At one extreme, Britain represents a 'Europeanised' expression of Anglo culture, with its massive Welfare State, strong collectivist ethos, secular values and distrust of liberty. At the opposite end of the Anglo spectrum we have the United States, with its minimal welfare provision, libertarian outlook and philo-semitic Protestantism. The remaining Anglo nations fall broadly between these two extremes.

So, while between Anglo countries have important features in common, there are many differences. This means that the 'Male Crisis' has taken distinct forms in the different Anglo nations. For example, in Britain the major problem is undoubtedly the Welfare dependent single mother and her parasitic, criminal brood. In the United States, with its more litigious, libertarian culture, the main problem seems to be Divorce, or the threat of it. As American readers know well enough, around 70% of Divorces are initiated by women and the Divorced male stands to lose 80% of his assets. Of course, this has led to a 'Marriage Strike' among American men. Since these expressions of feminist dysfunction are specific to individual countries, one must expect different 'Anglobitch Futures' in those countries.

Let's take a look at those probable outcomes...

The United States

It has been said that Anglo-American culture is distinct from the more 'organic', Romanized culture of western Europe. This finds expression in such diverse matters as politics, linguistics and aesthetics. For example, the Anglo-American left-wing tradition has quite distinct intellectual roots from Marxism, which is a movement rooted in the rarefied world of German academia. By contrast, Anglo-American radicalism emerged from a praxis of resistance periodically defined by intellectuals such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson or John Milton. This tradition has a distinct lineage of its own, linking modern radicals like Keynes or Mill to the American Revolution, the English Civil war, the Peasant's Revolt, the Baron’s Wars and Magna Carta. At a more populist level, we can detect a nascent radicalism in the medieval guilds (the first Trades Unions) of medieval England. Ultimately, the ancient Anglo-Saxon tradition of social equality, small government and the right to private property that prevailed in Britain until the Norman Conquest are the eternal seed-bed of this rich and laudable tradition. Thus, when American republicans decry Marxism as ‘un-American’ they are quite correct; they are quite wrong, however, to dismiss all progressive discourse as ‘un-American’. After all, the United States only exists because of that tradition – statements such as ‘all men are equal under God’ plainly derive from it, and would never have been formulated without its existence.

That radical spirit still drives the United States. The US is still the Anglosphere's - indeed, the world's - dominant nation. Most of the world's top universities are located in the US. It is beyond doubt the world's richest, most advanced and powerful country. However, a nation's standing is only maintained by a committed, integrated citizenry sustaining its institutions, generation after generation. With large numbers of the best American males – those with most to lose by Divorce – eschewing Marriage, and consequently removing their productive, industrious and high IQ genes from the population, the proportion of Anglo-Americans capable of making a meaningful cultural, social or economic contribution will drop disastrously in coming decades. In addition, the post-feminist explosion of unfettered female mate-choice has led to thuggish, shiftless males fathering an unhealthy proportion of all American children, with predictable results: declining standards of morality, aspiration and decency, a degraded education system and general cultural abasement.

While derided in European nations for its lack of history and Kultur, the American Civil war lent the young nation an epic gravitas that inspired the fabled Gilded Age, the blueprint for Western consumerism. Aside from that, America remains the guardian of the West's distinctive 'Faustian' spirit of exploration and discovery. In coming decades, these glories will wither as shiftless, retarded Morlocks - the products of unfettered female mate-selection - swarm across the land, spreading mayhem.

Australia: Odd Man Out?

Australia is an odd one. Ask most Brits and Americans and they will probably list Australia as the least feminist of all Anglo nations. However, this appraisal is specious. Such misandrist luminaries as Rupert Murdoch hail from Australia, not to mention uber-feminists like Germaine Greer.

That said, Australia is the most classless country in the Anglosphere - and one of the most classless nations in the world. While the United States prides itself on being free of hereditary distinctions, Australia's social mobility rates are far, far higher. And the quality of life in Australia is generally felt to be one of the highest in the world, if not the highest.

However, this idyll is marred by appalling male suicide rates, especially among boys and young men. These are among the highest in the world. Something distinctly unpleasant is happening to the male sex in Australia, of that there can be no doubt. In my view, Australian culture remains fixated on a kinetic, 'armoured' masculine archetype that dates from the Nineteenth Century, when the vast wilderness (and its aboriginal inhabitants) were tamed by hyper-masculine white men. In the Nineteenth Century, all that was well and good. In the modern world, however, such an archetype is hopelessly unrealistic as a guide to masculine behaviour. For one thing, there are very few jobs left that require kinetic prowess. For another, the rise of feminism has marginalised men in general - and hyper-masculine men in particular. Indeed, immersion in a hyper-masculine code of social behaviour is no longer lauded - it just leaves men ever more isolated and at risk. In my view, this 'gendered anomie' is the root cause of Australian men's many adjustment problems.

The worst danger is for Australian men to retreat ever further into the 'armoured' mindset that has damaged their mental and emotional health. It will only cause them more problems. Unless a more constructive, contemporary masculine archetype emerges Down Under, Australian men run the risk of complete marginalization. As ever, Anglosphere 'conservatism' is no friend to men; in misandrist cultures like ours, 'conservatism' only worsens our position. Without rejecting their 'armoured' archetype of maleness, Australian men will only destroy themselves in ever-greater numbers.

Great Britain

Britain is rendered distinct from the rest of the Anglosphere by its mind-boggling antiquity, above any other factor. This inflects all aspects of British life. In Britain, the past is omnipresent. Within ten minutes of here is an Eleventh Century chapel, for example. No other other Anglosphere nation contains such relics. Further, Britain is essentially undemocratic, being the only Anglosphere nation with hereditarian aspects to its political structure (the Monarchy, the House of Lords, the 'upper class' and so on). It is also characteristically European, with big government, big taxes and little freedom for the individual (British citizens are the most heavily monitored in the world).

In post-feminist Britain, every woman has a right to a child, whether she is in a position to support it or not. This is all part of the rights-without-responsibilities agenda feminists have engineered across the Anglosphere, of course - but Britain's elaborate welfare state ensures its most total expression. Perhaps this explains Angry Harry's offbeat obsession with 'Marxism' - Britain's Welfare programmes do have a Marxist flavour.

Consequently, Britain is the Anglosphere nation most likely to implode as a result of feminism. The present Welfare bill in Britain runs at £200 billion a year - £200 billion - and the bulk of this maintains idle, criminal morons from underclass families spawned by lone mothers. As is the case with America, unfettered female mate-choice cuts deep indeed. Unlike the American elite, the British liberal Establishment makes no attempt to break down this culture of dependence. As ever, patrician White Knightism panders to female idiocy at every turn.

Without severe intervention in the lives of the matriarchal underclass, expect Britain's economic collapse in the near future.

Wednesday, 3 October 2012

Because of the puritanical fictions
that prevail in Anglo-American society, Anglo women have become
impossible to please by rational means. As with Christian morality (a behavioural system intimately associated with Anglo feminism),
the bar has been set impossibly high. The outcome is either misandrist spinsterhood or,
more often, what we see around us: a female obsession with the dregs of the
male sex. Oddly, this bizarre paradox
makes sense. If no male is good enough for the Anglobitch, then rational scales
of differentiation no longer apply.

This is the problem with Game and its ‘Greek’ system of male
classification. The specific nature of Anglo-American hypergamy derives from a
puritanical archetype, removing it from all rational rules of hierarchical classification. Since no male is good enough for her, all men are flattened into an undifferentiated,
priapic horde in the Anglo female’s mind. A king is a jack is a joker… a
classical scholar at Yale is suddenly no better than a murderous baboon like
Charles Manson. An illiterate tramp with a ring through his nose instantly acquires the
same standing as an architect, physicist or surgeon.

And this explains why exponents of Game report no special mating
success in the Anglo-American world. All their 'Alpha' striving is meaningless in
a misandrist culture where male status has been downgraded to untermensch
levels. While men believe in such
classification systems, they have no meaning to Anglo women whatsoever. Similarly,
if all women were facially mutilated at birth and forced to wear sackcloth and
ashes, we would have no way to differentiate them: and with no woman higher than a
four, no female hierarchy of sexual appeal could exist. Or course, most feminists would
rather like that, too.

And this is what makes Game – so appealing to
the logical male mind–so ineffective in the Anglosphere.
Misandrist women cannot distinguish between Nobel Prize winners and tattooed
psychopaths – all are menand thusworthless brutes in their entitled
eyes. And so all the Gamers’ striving for 'Alpha' status is pointless –
they might as well stick rings through their noses, grow some dreadlocks and
slouch the streets scratching their butts. Indeed, as many North American
commentators claim, their mating chances would probably improve if they did this. ‘Omega males’ doubtless
confirm the Anglo female’s contempt for men in general. If she has to have
a man, only theworst knave will do.

Gamers are wrong about Anglo women. Socons are, too. Writers like
Daniel Amneus consider female hypergamy to be the ‘glue’ that binds male
consent to the social order. That might make sense in less repressive cultural settings. In the Anglosphere, however, rational female hypergamy has
short-circuited due to our cultural bloc’s uniquely puritanical socio-moral conditions. While
alphas and high betas trudge home to empty beds or divorce threats, tramps and
mass-murderers wade through tons of female flesh without breaking sweat. And so
the Anglosphere falls apart around our ears. Yet still David Futrelle exhorts
us all to ‘respect women’ and be ‘nice’.

Sunday, 23 September 2012

Ah, the
lengths the legacy media will go to pretend that young Anglo-American women
find intelligent males attractive. The
television show Beauty and the Geek implies that – given time, coaching and a
little TLC –even the haughtiest Lyndon Hall cunt can be persuaded to consider
mathematics majors and software developers 'exciting' mates.

All
utter drivel, of course. As just about everyone living to the East of Eden
knows, American women are by instinct drawn to morons, layabouts and violent thugs. In
reality, the vast majority of high IQ males with tangential interests end up
sexually disenfranchised, a la James Holmes , Cho Sui Seung and George Sodini.

For
proof of this, we need only consider the case of James Holmes. When he was a
diligent young geek, winning scholarships and striving for academic success, he
enjoyed no sexual success whatsoever. After attacking a theatre dressed as the
joker and killing several people, he is now being inundated with offers of sex
and marriage.

In
short, it is entirely obvious that women do not find diligent geeks attractive.
It is also obvious that they are drawn to public displays of masculine violence
like moths to a flame. However often David ‘Blobfish’ Futrelle tells male
college students that MRAs and PUAs are ‘screwed-up misogynists’ and that women
like ‘nice guys’, the blunt reality of their sexless lives will repudiate his
ludicrous advice.

What
exactly goes on in Futrelle’s ‘workshops’, anyway? He is hardly a young Adonis
with a tanned model on his arm. The only women he attracts to his blog are
past-prime soccer moms and embittered lesbians. And once his ‘students’ work
out that his ludicrous advice leads nowhere but the Incel Club, his appeal as a
dating guru will surely dwindle to nothing.

I have
an idea. Chicagoans, the next time Futrelle visits your campus offering his
pearls of wisdom, why don’t you raise the issue of James Holmes? You know, that
guy who never got any sex when he cracked the books and ‘did the right thing’ –
but now stands waist-deep in love-letters after shooting defenceless people in
a movie theatre.

Monday, 23 July 2012

In the UK, we still know very little about the
Aurora Batman massacre or its perpetrator. This gives us the opportunity to
make a few predictions about him, to be ‘reality-tested’ at some future date.

I
predict that James Eagan Holmes will be:

Single – not married or in a
relationship.

Sexually disenfranchised – that
is, not in a sexual
relationship.In truth, he will probably
be a virgin.

Deeply disillusioned – his life
never ‘lived up to its promise’.

A mercenary – one of the new
breed of Anglo-American men who are (or become) indifferent to 'mainstream' society and its misandrist values.

Alienated – he will have no (or very few) deep relationships with other people.

A nerdy, high-IQ individual of
the type typically shunned by Anglo women.

He will exhibit no sign of
organic brain-disease. He will, however, be labelled mentally ill.

He will hail from a middle-class
or affluent working-class background.

In sum, this man will embody the ‘male crisis’
discussed by so many Anglo-American MRAs. He will be a white, middle-class
individual who – prior to the massacre – conformed to societal standards in
every way. He cracked the books, respected women and strove to advance himself
– and ended up with no sex, no home, no job and no future. Poltroons like David
Futrelle visit college campuses telling young men to accept the feminist message – pedestalize women, shun masculinity and conform to approved modes of
aspiration (formal education, essentially). The problem with this sage advice
is that conformity no longer pays off for Anglo-American men. Males who subscribe to such rubrics get no sex, no
money, no public respect and (despite advanced qualifications) little
meaningful employment.

Young
men who slavishly conform to the misandrist agendas inherent in the Anglosphere eventually
find themselves trapped in what British psychiatrist R D Laing called a ‘double
bind’ – a contradictory situation where all avenues lead to failure. Instead of
being applauded for their conformity, they find themselves despised and scorned
for it. While snarling, illiterate thugs monopolize all the sexual action, the
Anglo conformist finds himself in a blind-alley of lifelong sexual frustration.
While posturing rappers and sadistic jocks rake in millions, many
highly-educated males who ‘did the right thing’ end up flipping burgers for a
pittance (as James Holmes did).

From
what little I have seen of the news footage, it is clearly the toxic blend of
knee-jerk misandry and female pedestalization we all expect from the American
media. Reports tirelessly praise the female victims – their selflessness,
intelligence and vivacity. For example, Jessica Ghawi is universally lauded as a
female saint while (somewhat predictably) the male victims hardly merit a
mention. With fearful zest, the tragedy has been twisted into an anti-male
circus. The only males with positive write-ups are the three White Knights who died 'shielding their women' from Holmes' bullets. The well-worn feminist double-standard at work, here: men are unwanted except as workhorses, ATM machines, cannon-fodder and now, bullet-proof vests. What clearer proof do we need that the Anglosphere’s ‘default setting’
is misandry – and that men who conform to it are fools?

Oddly,
the killer’s behaviour prior to the massacre (dropping out of his doctoral programme) suggests he had belatedly discerned
this truth. Further, his adoption of the Joker’s persona implies identification with the
anti-heroic, since the Joker is ‘mainstream’ society’s relentless foe. Perhaps
the atrocity was an attempt to express his new identity in the most adversarial
manner possible. In a culture where manhood is reflexively vilified at every
turn, troubled minds will clutch at any archetype containing the least shred of
masculine self-worth.

PS: I see David Futrelle has produced a 'pussified' version of Anglobitch. Such incisive barbs... such cutting irony... for a moment there I was, uh, humbled by the brilliance of his wit. Charlie Chaplin, Peter Cook and the Monty Python team will doubtless be looking to their laurels.

Monday, 25 June 2012

The argument that manosphere writers merely parrot each other’s
opinions and live in a conceptual bubble apart from the ‘real world’ is common
currency among our opponents. David Futrelle, for example, has an obsession
with anti-feminist Reddit commentators (hardly MRA titans, it has to be said)
and continually claims that MRA events attract ‘two or three divorced men’.

Is he right? How do MRA arguments stack up against research by conventional scholars? Are they a meaningful corpus
of theory or mere ‘tales told by an idiot, signifying nothing’?

I have long been fascinated by the writings of Charles Murray. As well
as popularizing the concept of the underclass, his negative social prognoses
tangentially reflect MRA perspectives. His recent book, Coming Apart: the State of White America 1960-2000 contains a good deal of rigorous research that supports many MRA
precepts. However, this interesting study also
raises serious questions about other aspects of MRA thought.

In brief, Coming Apart chronicles the moral decline of the white
working class. It also describes the widening divide between America’s ‘cognitive elite’ and
the broad masses. By focusing on whites-only, he avoids the racial
controversies that marred public reception of his earlier books.Murray broadly argues that the white working class has lost its moral
compass over the past fifty years. He cites the fact that only 48% of working
class whites are married in 2010, compared to 84% in 1960. By contrast, 84% of
the American upper-middle class are married today compared to 90% in 1960 – a
much smaller fall.

Murray argues that the upper-middle class (and above them, the new
elites) are increasingly detached from the mainstream in how they eat, drink or
spend their free time. For example, most Americans spend 35 hours a week
watching TV – the new elite spend less than five hours a week. He also
identifies a geographical distinction, too – the elite live in ‘Superzips’
denuded of all working class citizens. Common experiences define the new elite
– principally, private schooling and an Ivy League education. In short, the American experience is becoming
steadily more ‘British’, sans the
elaborate welfare programs and swingeing taxation.

All very interesting stuff, to be sure. What is happening to Anglo-American gender
relations in this time of change?

Roissy in DC describes modern America as a
‘post-marriage’ society. Women supposedly threw off the shackles of monogamy in the
late 60s in order to mate exclusively with high-status, ‘alpha’ males. This
created a ‘rump’ of sexually-disenfranchised ‘gamma’ males, a group that were
much rarer in the old, monogamous order.
By learning to mimic 'alpha' behaviour, however, the student of Game can
confound female hypergamy and get his share of the sexual action presently
monopolised by a small elite of men. In this view Marriage, traditional
courtship and other monogamous institutions have fallen by the wayside and have
little meaning in the 21st century. Likewise, feminism has failed –
smashed on the rocks of female hypergamy.

Murray’s research, however, largely refutes this picture. Roissy seems
to be describing life in the working class, not the middle class or the elite.
84% of Murray’s upper-middle class sample-citizens are firmly married, even
today. Perhaps Roissy is himself working class, not the ‘alpha’ he claims to
be. This is probably true of other PUA scribes, too. Most of them ply their trade in and around the student counter-culture, hardly an 'alpha' arena.

Let us move from American PUAs to the Men’s Movement proper. American
MRAs broadly argue that, since the early 1960s, American Women have shunned
decent males in favour of anti-social ‘alpha’ thugs. This has created a surfeit
of dysfunctional, single-mother families. Such shaky kinship groups are seen as
being especially damaging to boys (‘we are a generation of men who have been
raised by women’), contributing to male educational failure, social anomie and the emergence of a riot-prone underclass. As with the PUA perspective, this scenario is true of the working class
but not the upper or middle classes, most of whom still marry. Since the
American working class only constitute about 40% of the population, it is
premature to speak of ‘widespread social collapse’ in America – the
decision-making, wealth producing classes remain more or less intact in terms
of functional gender-relations.

Similarly, Murray’s figures refute MRA claims of a universal Marriage
Strike. While working class males are indeed eschewing Marriage, this is not
true of the middle class. Even if they get divorced, most middle class men seem to remarry. Besides, working class males may not be rejecting Marriage, as such – in
a hypergamous culture, they may simply lack the resources to realise or
maintain one.

So, in the simplest sense, the MRA world-view presents a fairly
accurate picture of life in the working class – but only that class. It does
not apply universally to Anglo-American society. However, the Anglobitch Thesis
stacks up very well against Murray’s evidence. While the middle-classes still
marry, they are increasingly marrying women from outside the Anglosphere. So
while middle class marriage rates remain stable, the nature of Marriage – that
is, who marries whom – is changing somewhat.

Traditionalist MRAs have long taken issue with my belief that the
ethno-cultural composition of the Anglosphere will undergo dramatic change if
Anglo feminism continues unchecked. However, there are now more non-Caucasian
children being born in the US for the first time in history. Further, I contend
that the ethnic complexion of the elite will also undergo rapid change. As more
middle class males with intelligence and self-awareness marry and interbreed
with non-Anglo women untainted by the Anglobitch meme, their children will come
to occupy ever more elite roles.

Further, Murray fails to address the pivotal role of white, working
class women in creating the new white underclass he so detests. He airily
invokes ‘cultural change’ as an autonomous transformational instrument. Culture,
however, changes for other, more primal reasons. Perhaps as an Anglo socon Murray
cannot accept that women can create social problems. The British socon Theodore
Dalrymple also falters in this regard. He tirelessly excoriates the brutish
mates of lower class women but never explains their obvious preference for such
men. However, allowing the Anglo female’s preference for shiftless thugs to
reign unchecked is primarily responsible for the recent decline of the
Anglo-American working class. This reflexive preference allows genes
associated with criminality, low IQ and emotional instability to proliferate in
communities afflicted by it: so in a couple of generations a proud working
class becomes a degenerate underclass.

And there are other issues at work. Anglo American women are
essentially misandrist – in general, they don’t like men. This attitude derives
from the parent culture which, with its puritanical obsessions, reflexively
vilifies men as sexual beings. The ‘trickle-down’ of libertine middle-class
values began in the early seventies, weakening the twin stigmas of illegitimacy
and singleness among the masses. The rise of female employment coupled with the
generous expansion of a pro-female welfare state enabled lower-class women to
exclude men from their lives altogether, if they wished it. Once the thug donated
his sperm, he was no more welcome than the fawning ‘nice guy’ in the lower
class woman’s bed. Simply put, the underclass male can provide no more than the
State. The State, however, has the added advantages of not expecting regular
sex, not setting behavioural boundaries for children or expecting basic personal
responsibility from the woman – in short, of not being a human male. Welfare
dependence is therefore a win-win situation for the lower-class female. Murray
often talks about white working class males refusing to take the jobs
available. He seldom mentions that most working class women reject industrious
working males for the State’s financial favours.

In conclusion, a new world is unfolding around us. Murray’s research
supports some aspects of the classic MRA world-view, but only in a limited way.
The changes occurring are more subtle and complex and fit my own theories
rather better. Anglosphere Caucasians are experiencing two things predicted by
the Anglobitch Thesis: limited ethno-cultural replacement at the elite level
and chronic dysfunction at the mass level. Perhaps the frantic hysteria of
White Knight bigots like Tommy Fleming is fired by this realization. However,
Tommy fails to grasp that the woman-worship, sexual repression and casual
misandry he holds so dear has caused the social malaise he so despises.
Allowing pedestalized women to act irresponsibly – the linchpin of Tommy’s White
Knight philosophy – has ruined his own agenda. And the same
contradiction applies to other ‘conservative’ MRAs like Angry Harry. Sadly, few
Anglo-American conservatives possess the self-awareness to acknowledge this.

Monday, 7 May 2012

Something I find continually baffling is the British MRA insistence that feminists are allies of the political left. Although some feminists profess left-liberal beliefs, most Anglo-American feminists have identical views to socons on issues like pornography, prostitution and foreign marriages. And if we track back a few decades, we find they shared the same views on racism and other social issues. In short, both movements subscribe to a crabbed, reactionary Puritanism that could easily come from the Victorian era. Exactly why Angry Harry persists in conflating feminism with Marxism in the face of these facts is something best known to himself.The socon-feminist connection is confirmed by a brief look at the Right Minds blog network associated with the right-wing British tabloid, The Daily Mail. This is now the world’s most popular online news resource, despite having supported Hitler in the Thirties (I kid you not). On Right Minds we find many blogs penned by feminist socons eager to tear down our hard-won sexual freedoms.Just consider Julia Manning, trying to impose a ban on all Internet pornography in the UK. A self-defined conservative, her views are identical to feminists like Dworkin, Greer and MacKinnon – anti-sex, anti-pleasure and anti-freedom, not to mention quietly homophobic:

Polling detailed by Kirsty Walker in this paper today shows that two thirds of the public are backing the Daily Mail's campaign for an automatic block on on-line porn. This is a welcome result, but it also means that a third of people essentially think that pornography is ok. This, tragically, shows how succesful the porn industry has been at presenting itself as normal, that sex and porn are simply interchangeable descriptions of the same thing. Once curtailed by the obscene publications act, the porn industry now enjoys freedoms that its investors exploit to the full, with no holds barred and total indifference to the shattered lives they leave behind.

We ban things that are harmful - drugs, speeding, stealing. As a society we have agreed that both the individual and societal dangers outweigh people's rights to indulge themselves, and although a law cannot change someones heart, it is a clear statement of values. You can still chose to break the law, but your behaviour will have legal and moral as well as possibly material and medical consequences.

We put barriers in place when society has recognised that something is potentially harmful or undesirable, especially to the vulnerable, but not so harmful that it needs to be banned. Alcohol is an example; it's a toxic substance that manufacturers have excelled in turning into delicious, palatable forms but most of us know will be harmful in excess and shouldn't be given to children.

We are now in the ridiculous position of neither banning nor putting up barriers to porn. Ask anyone in the street if they think we would all benefit if we were physically and mentally healthier and they'd say yes. Ask them if government should encourage - not force - healthy behaviours and protect the vulnerable from harm and most would again agree with this, many more I reckon than the 66% who answered 'yes' to the poll asking if there should be an automatic block to on-line porn.

This should be sounding an alarm in the heads of every politician - the Prime Minister included - many who have said we should clamp down on the sexualisation of children. Politicians are no longer upholding the ban of shocking, graphic images. Now they are resisting barriers to reduce harm to children - even children - when it's firmly established that pornography is highly addictive, distorts and defiles the relationships and expectations of adults (let alone children), encourages aggressive, debasing treatment of women and is a causative factor in the hyper-sexualisation of our culture.

Pornography is guilty. Guilty of causing sexual misconduct in children, exposing young girls to exploitation, driving domestic violence in the home, causing addiction and obsessive behaviour in adults and breaking up marriages. We are no longer free when we are addicted, demeaned and exploited. Why is the government pandering to liberal-individualists, ISP providers and industry and ignoring the evidence that MP Clare Perry has collated? We need a healthy society for a healthy economy: ignore the threat of porn and you put the health of both at risk.

The gaps in her logic are so huge, one could drive a Challenger tank through them. Firstly, a poll comprising the views of Daily Mail readers is wildly unrepresentative of public opinion. Secondly, she presents no valid scientific evidence to support her claims. Lastly, countries with high levels of access to porn have rather lower sex-crime rates than the ‘puricon’ Anglo-Saxon nations, utterly confounding her position. In truth, plain women like Manning are terrified of male access to porn, prostitutes and foreign brides because such freedoms negate their own sexual worth on the dating market. Instead of confessing their own sexual paranoia, however, they prefer to concoct spurious arguments of the type seen above, invoking ‘society’ and ‘children’ in classic socon fashion. The popular feminist view that the Men’s Movement is ‘obsessed’ by women – a position widely shared by David Futrelle’s followers, for instance - is simply a matter of projection. In reality, feminists are obsessed by men and their sexual activities to the exclusion of all else! Even lesbian feminists want to ban porn, foreign brides and prostitution.And so we see that feminists and socons share exactly the same attitudes and opinions. Angry Harry’s ongoing conflation of feminism with Marxism is thus seriously flawed – yes, some feminists profess left-wing beliefs but the vast majority hold firmly conservative attitudes on sexual issues. Indeed, some do both. While the execrable Catherine MacKinnon extols the virtues of Marxism in one breath, in the next she holds puricon ideals that would stagger Queen Victoria.

In my view, Anglo-American conservatism is inherently misandrist because the Puritanism implicit in Anglo culture automatically pedestalizes women and denigrates men. Hence, all Anglo conservatives are essentially ‘Earth Mother’ feminists - whether they know it or not. Further evidence of this ‘femcon’ alliance can be found in Right Minds – for our good friend Tommy Fleming is there! Yes, the anti-Civil Rights White Knight is now sharing his nonsense with the Brits – but maybe not for long (see my link below).

It is gratifying to see one’s views shaping the manosphere. My caustic observations about the socon-feminist alliance are now common currency. A number of articles on The Spearhead show which way the wind is blowing. Most male socons are like George Sodini. They think ‘playing by the rules’ should, in a properly-ordered society, get them sex. Unfortunately, the contemporary Anglosphere is a matriarchy ruled by women’s whims, not a ‘properly-ordered society’. In reality, it isn’t the State or the Power Elites who dispense sex to men but rather dysfunctional little skanks with college degrees in finger-painting and womyn’s studies. And despite the socons’ idealization of them, these ‘ladies’ remain entranced by bums, thugs and sociopaths.

How long before incel conservative men realize the errors of their ways? Maybe never. Some males are too deeply enmeshed in the matriarchy to ever be saved. But now the conservative wing of the manosphere is folding fast, maybe more will renounce their delusions before too long.

PS: Check out the following link to Searchlight, Britain's premier anti-fascist publication. There, we find Fleming is not just a White Knight but a KKK admirer, to boot:

Thursday, 3 May 2012

We discuss White Knights a lot in the Men’s Movement. However, very
little digital ink is expended on their origins and motivations. Obviously,
‘sucking up’ to women gives low betas, gammas and obese, moronic misfits their
only hope of free sex. However, I suspect there are deeper motivations behind
their absurd idolization of the thug-lovers and misandrist feminists that pass
for women in the contemporary Anglosphere.

In my experience, most White Knights tend to come from ‘enmeshed’ family
backgrounds. Enmeshed families are dysfunctional, lower-middle class kinship
groups whose members live in splendid (or not so splendid) isolation from the
rest of society. They often have ‘time-warp’ values several decades behind the
mainstream. Their children usually wear outmoded fashions and have an inflated
sense of their own abilities. School or college is not a good time for them –
such ‘real world’ institutions shatter the enmeshed child’s pipe-dreams of
his/her ‘specialness’. During this stressful period, the enmeshed family and
its delusions are the child’s sole haven. Indeed, the youngster’s attachment to
the family matriarch grows ever stronger during these difficult years. This is
where manginas and white knights come from – cold, frigid socons spouting their
parents’ outmoded platitudes about ‘goddesses’ or, alternatively, socialist
woman-worshippers in ostrich-like denial of women's true nature.

Here is an academic description:

The term enmeshment has been widely used in the family
therapy literature since it was popularized by the work of Salvador Minuchin
(1978)...

"Enmeshment refers to an extreme form of proximity and intensity in
family interactions...In a highly enmeshed, overinvolved family, changes within
one family member or in the relationship between two family members reverberate
throughout the system...

On an individual level, interpersonal differentiation
in an enmeshed system is poor...in enmeshed families the individual gets lost
in the system. The boundaries that define individual autonomy are so weak that
functioning in individually differentiated ways is radically handicapped
(Minuchin, et al, 1978, p.30)."

Minuchin described the lack of clear ego boundaries between family
members which produced a form of fusion, a condition that interfered with a
clear sense of self. Much like parental alienation, the phenomenon of
enmeshment may be found in varying degrees of intensity, with corresponding
degrees of negative impact on child development.

Tommy Fleming is a perfect example of the enmeshed socon while David
Futrelle exemplifies the enmeshed socialist. Fleming has the bony, fanatic face
of a defeated Confederate Colonel and his website often alludes to the
school-bullying and general ridicule he experienced during adolescence. His
reflexive adulation of the past represents a fixation with the twisted dynamics
of his biological family, nothing more. And his blind woman-worship is best
explained by the semi-incestuous mother-love he experienced during turbulent
adolescence.

Turning to Futrelle, he clearly had similar issues growing up. His
enmeshed family were probably hippies - or at least touched by that
counterculture. Man-boob David doubtless gambolled around a middle-middle class
home full of Raggedy-Ann dolls and hokey books by the execrable Timothy Leary.
In this candy-floss idyll, he could do no wrong: mother-love, food and
approbation were ever at hand.

The mangina’s retreat from the ‘real world’ into the arms of his
enmeshed family is crucial to his fanatic rejection of consensus reality. He
deliberately forsakes the social mainstream for a mother-centred dream-world
several decades behind contemporary values. Note how Fleming embodies the
1950s, Futrelle the 1970s – the Twenty-First century rarely figures in their
pompous formulations. And the same is true of other White Knights,
left-liberals and socons in general.

Why does the English-speaking world produce more White Knights than any
other cultural bloc? Partly because the Anglosphere’s individualist,
post-puritanical ethos creates far more enmeshed, lower-middle class families.
In other cultures, greater ethno-cultural cohesion plus overtly masculine
values do much to dissolve insular families and disrupt male attachment to
them. Military service and legalized prostitution force men out into the wider
world, whether they want to go or not. In Thailand, where most adolescent males
use prostitutes as a matter of course, the enticements of ‘the world’ are too
heady to permit the sickly ‘mother-attachment’ that dominates the Anglosphere.
By contrast, countries like England are full of latent-homosexual manginas
worshipping denatured, frigid women in the face of all rational evidence.

The enmeshed reactionary invariably becomes a White Knight because of
the gynocratic nature of pre-Internet Anglo-Saxon culture. Women were
effusively pedestalized all through the 50s, 60s and 70s in films, pop music
and television shows. This agenda began to wane a little in the 80s and 90s but
only met serious opposition with the rise of the Internet. Prior to that, the
Pedestal Syndrome prevailed across the Anglosphere, embracing both the
left-liberal counterculture and its socon adversaries. Thus, hailing from an
enmeshed family invariably embeds the victim’s mind in the ‘pedestal era’. Both
Fleming and Futrelle are perfect examples of this process, in their respective
ways. Trapped in their vanished worlds, the poisonous reality of contemporary
gender-relations passes over them like the wind.